On Jul 14, 2004, at 1:04 PM, gemgram wrote:
David Brauer writes:"Bottom line: the MAC has to spend the money somewhere. Better on thepeople affected by noise than on a facility that's already overbuilt (and it is overbuilt, in gates, parking, etc.)"
I am bothered by the idea "has to spend the money somewhere".
While I truly feel for those who built and bought houses before the Airport
was in full operation, I must say there are other environmental impacts and
even greater needs in some other areas.
Sorry, guys. The money (as others have noted) is dedicated to airport operations - it can't be used for the better purposes you cite.
Since the MAC isn't talking about cutting the dedicated fee, that means you can have a nicer concourse for the Airport Mall or some mitigation for people adversely affected by airport noise.
Me, I'd rather spend it on people who suffer, even if it is less than those who suffer in other walks of life. Frankly, supporting such a paradigm might help others in other walks of life with more serious problems.
Or, we can all undercut each other, which is a pretty good way to make sure no one gets ahead.
David Brauer Kingfield
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
